Global Warming - Fact or fiction?

[jacmoe]

Hate to dig up this relic of a thread, but apparently the answer turns out to have been "fiction".

I am not really sure why you're saying that - especially now.
But, I hope you're right.

If you hate digging up relics, why did you do it?

[syd]

I remember I was kind of shocked when I was in california in 2006, realizing that in america, climate change wasn't even an observed phenomenon, it was something kept hidden. afaik, the subject started to pop up quietly in the mid 90's.
economical interests are responsible of such blindness, still today, in every industrialized country.

let's hope the Copenhagen conference will end to something positive.

[_tommo_]

Hate to dig up this relic of a thread, but apparently the answer turns out to have been "fiction".

And why, if i can ask? To me it's possible to see hints to a *really fast* warming and "randomization" of climate...
from the newly opened Northwest Passage, to the not-so-veiled claims over Arctic lands, to the fact that where i live yesterday was the coldest day of the year with 10°C above zero.
To not consider floods, hurricanes, and unexpected climate events that hit more and more traditionally stable zones.
And desertification...

To me we risk that it turns into Fact much sooner than expected

[syd]

I am not really sure why you're saying that - especially now.

And why, if i can ask?

It was ironical (i guess!)

[xavier]

I am not really sure why you're saying that - especially now.

What, did they completely suppress the "East Anglia emails" story in Copenhagen? I understand why Denmark might not want to know, given the imminent meeting...

[jacmoe]

The emails which shows that the scientist have deliberately kept information hidden from the public about the global warming?
Or emails which shows that the scientists have over-exaggerated the importance of human contributions to the global warming?

The fact is: we don't really know, do we?

All we know is that something is happening.
Maybe it's Mother Nature playing tricks on us, or ...

I do know that in my country we haven't had a decent winter since the late 70'ies..

Maybe it's our Earth changing it's climate all by itself, but the previous periods have built up way slower than the one we're witnessing right now.

It's all speculations.

And both sides of the fence are using all means of arguments.

Who knows?

About the conference in Copenhagen: I am not really impressed.
It's good that the U.S. arsed themselves to participate - that's one step in the right direction.
But I can't see why it should change much, if anything.

[xavier]

The emails which shows that the scientist have deliberately kept information hidden from the public about the global warming?
Or emails which shows that the scientists have over-exaggerated the importance of human contributions to the global warming?

Pretty much. The G20 is converging on your hometown to try to agree to the most draconian and regressive economic redistribution of global wealth possible, on the basis of the word of the "scientists" behind the aforementioned scam. It's little more than legalized third-world extortion of developed and developing nations, on the basis of "junk science".

And the "media" continues to shirk their professional duty on this story...

[syd]

so you guys think there is some sort of conspiracy?
at which point you disagree then?

1- climate is changing
2- it is caused by the atmosphere composition alterations.
3- men are able to alter the atmosphere composition.
4- men altered the atmosphere which caused the climate instability.

[jacmoe]

Shiny new avatar, Syd!

[syd]

glad you like it, jacmoe
it was about time to put something, so stonecold found the one that fits well

[KungFooMasta]

I think syd laid it out pretty nicely. And as jacmoe said, both sides will try to argue anything they can. Lets all just assume fact and try to refine our processes to be more earth friendly.

[xavier]

at which point you disagree then?

2- it is caused by the atmosphere composition alterations.
3- men are able to alter the atmosphere composition.
4- men altered the atmosphere which caused the climate instability.

Humans possess an arrogance unique among all creatures, that we somehow have the ability to affect something so massive in any meaningful way. We also have a tendency towards instant gratification, which leads us to believe things happen on a much smaller scale than global history -- in other words, we can't fathom eons and epochs, and the idea that we are simply still coming out of the last Ice Age is incomprehensible to many; it's just too large a scale for many to understand.

This is not to say that we should pollute away -- I am all for reducing industrial emissions and clear-cutting, because, well, I like to breathe fresh air. I don't need a "manufactured" emergency to desire those things.

[CABAListic]

Humans possess an arrogance unique among all creatures, that we somehow have the ability to affect something so massive in any meaningful way.

But we do. If mankind were to launch all their nuclear missiles, for example, you'd hardly recognise the planet. Granted, that may not be a good analogy. But weather and climate is a complex and potentially chaotic system, and the primary property of chaotic systems is that even very minor distortions can induce very strong reactions. Or they may not. I think the only safe assumption is that we really don't know nearly enough about the topic to draw a scientifically valid conclusion either way.

Anyway, I definitely agree with you on

This is not to say that we should pollute away -- I am all for reducing industrial emissions and clear-cutting, because, well, I like to breathe fresh air. I don't need a "manufactured" emergency to desire those things.

It just seems that politics and economy might need it.

[weshowe]

2- it is caused by the atmosphere composition alterations.

That is the weak point in the argument for anthropogenic warming. The assumption that correlation with CO2 levels is the causation of warming may be as solid factually as the accepted wisdom, a mere 30 or so years ago, that ulcers were caused by excessive stomach acidity associated with Type "A" personalities, instead of Helicobacter pylori.

Incidentally, 30 years ago people were worried about a new Ice Age beginning.

[jjp]

Incidentally, 30 years ago people were worried about a new Ice Age beginning.

Which would be more dangerous to humans as a species, I think.

[xavier]

It also amuses me that the "scientific community" has declared the "debate on global warning" as "over". Now, last I checked, scientists have a chief responsibility continually to re-examine findings in light of new data and technologies. These "climate experts" on the other hand, remind me of the Catholic Church circa 1600, who imprisoned a man (Galileo) over the heretic notion that the earth might *not* be the center of the universe.

It can really be summed up in the words of Agent K:

"1500 years ago we *knew* the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago we *knew* the earth was flat....Imagine what you'll *know* tomorrow".

But you can only *know* if you continue to question, which in this case, has unfortunately given way to political populism.

[Vectrex]

This guy does great climate change videos and debunkings of climate deniers
This one deals with some of the leaked emails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

[Vectrex]

Incidentally, 30 years ago people were worried about a new Ice Age beginning.

Which would be more dangerous to humans as a species, I think.

That was caused because back then the data showed that the climate would change, but there wasn't enough to predict which way. The ice age thing was the media (of course). Just think, there's actually a chance, no matter how small that the media could be the demise of humans.. what a way to go

[xavier]

This guy does great climate change videos and debunkings of climate deniers
This one deals with some of the leaked emails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Yeah, I prefer a less biased and more reasoned and professional approach; one that doesn't pay attention to talking heads (I can't help but notice that your video responds only to FOX News pundits):

http://www.cato.org/global-warming

[VictorMoran]

Hey Vectrex I guess Xavier does not know that Rupper Murdof (Owner of Fox) seats in the Board of director on the Cato Institute.
For those who wonder about the credibility of the Cato Institute in global warming, you can get a historical perpective by doing an Internet search in Cato and Tabacco.
The Cato institute is the Think Tank Group the tobacco giant Phillip Morris back in 1999 hired to produce counter data to discredit the statistic evidence against smoking.
Guess who was the board of director of Phillip Morris, yet that's right Rupper Murdof.
Now you will never guess who funds the Cato Institute now to produce “Scientific Data” against Global warming: The American Petroleum Institute and the Coal Industry.

The Cato institute is a group of antigoverment activist politicians and Lobbyists that specializes if producing “scientific data”, they call it policies,
but is more like public opinion propaganda for Corporate America if they can afford it.
There is big money in climate change legislation. That is the only reason you see the taking head at Fox News, and all the AM Fox News affiliates repeating the same message.
What you will never find is any study by the Cato Institute that somehow favor the ordinary individual.

[xavier]

Ah, the radical left tunes in with their talking points -- I was wondering how long it would take for you to meander over here, Victor. "If you're not with us, you're against us", eh? Isn't that the Soros way? Glad to see you are still living in your fantasy world, how's the weather?

I mean, really, the least you could do, if you are going to hate someone, is get their name (even remotely) correct...

And as for facts...wow. I mean, do you even bother to check *any* facts when you get your marching orders from MoveOn? Simplest way to debunk your nonsense:

Board of Directors

* K. Tucker Andersen, Senior Consultant, Cumberland Associates LLC
* Frank Bond, Chairman, The Foundation Group
* Edward H. Crane, President, Cato Institute
* Richard J. Dennis, President, Dennis Trading Group
* Ethelmae C. Humphreys, Chairman, Tamko Roofing Products, Inc.
* David H. Koch, Executive Vice President, Koch Industries, Inc.
* Robert A. Levy, Chairman, Cato Institute
* John C. Malone, Chairman, Liberty Media Corporation
* William A. Niskanen, Chairman Emeritus and Distinguished Senior Economist, Cato Institute
* David H. Padden, President, Padden & Company
* Lewis E. Randall, Board Member, E*Trade Financial
* Howard S. Rich, Chairman, Americans for Limited Government
* Donald G. Smith, President, Donald Smith & Co., Inc.
* Frederick W. Smith, Chairman & CEO, FedEx Corporation
* Jeffrey S. Yass, Managing Director, Susquehanna International Group, LLP
* Fred Young, Former Owner, Young Radiator Company

http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html

'nuff said. I'll not even dignify the rest of your blather with a response.

Have a great day though!

[VictorMoran]

Hey Vectrex I guess some people get mad easily and start name calling.

I believe Murdoch have been an active member the Board of director of the Cato Institute since 1997
But hey no one has to take my word for it, it is the Cato Institute who say so.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n6-10.html

Perhaps Xavier, with his vast knowledge of the internal operations of the Cato Institute, have some more updated information in that front and he can enlighten us.
but to my knowledge there have not been any press release, other than Xavier partial List which no surprisingly he got from the Cato Institute, indicating that Murdoch left the group at any time.
Since Murdoch conflict of interest with Phillip Morris and the Cato Institute defense of the Tobacco Industry made him such high profile conservative in the late 90's,
you would think there would be some record some where saying he left the organization at some point.

To give an idea about the cozy relation between the Cato Institute and Fox News, Headline News and some the other the Nut-Jobs Conservative/Libertarian commentators,
here is a compilation of some their experts stances on various topics, always in defense of a corporation at the expense of the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmLAUJmwT1w

Whether it is Oil, Coal, Tabacco, Trans fat food, Health, War profiteering, etc, you name if a corporation have money to pay the Cato Institute to produce favorable data, they are there.

The attacks on climate change legislation is just a work for Hire, the moment green Jobs becomes profitable and they can afford groups like the Cato Institute, the Cato Institute will not hesitate to write policies to claim global warming.
Just think about, we know that the Polar Caps are melting, the Oceans current and temperatures are changing, Season are changing and it is all at a rate never seemed in history, and all this people have is a few mined Quotes from some personal Emails of some scientist? Give me a break, only an ideology minded person will believe that, unfortunately there are lot of people like that floating around.

BTW is snowing in Texas, an this is very rare, but it is what you expect from climate changes, but we all know how this will be use by the Cato Institute, Fox New,
to reinforce the beleive on people like Xavier that this is evidence that Global warming is a Hoax.

[xavier]

Hey Vectrex I guess some people get mad easily and start name calling.

Can you point out where I called you any names? Other than an accurate description of your "left radical" politics?

I believe Murdoch have been an active member the Board of director of the Cato Institute since 1997
But hey no one has to take my word for it, it is the Cato Institute who say so.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n6-10.html

Funny, I showed you the board of directors -- maybe your free public education has failed your reading skills?

Or is it that true to your left liberal roots, you can't let facts get in the way of your opinion?

[xavier]

Just think about, we know that the Polar Caps are melting, the Oceans current and temperatures are changing, Season are changing and it is all at a rate never seemed in history, and all this people have is a few mined Quotes from some personal Emails of some scientist?

The problem with the emails is they only point out an instance of suppressing opposing thought in what are supposed to be objective scientific journals -- a practice that is anathema to objective science. Even you can understand that simple logic. The more worrisome issue is how many instances of active suppression we *don't* know about -- the emails constitute a "smoking gun" in this case, and validate the many claims of persecution and omission that climate scientists around the world have levied.

FWIW, no one is arguing that average global temperature has overall risen in the past 100 years; you can't argue with statistics. Nor is there any dissent on the fact that for the past decade, there has been no statistically significant increase in global average temperature.

There are *drastic* differences, however, among perfectly objective and apolitical *climate* scientists as to the reason for that 100-year rise. Included among those differences are measurement methodologies; even you cannot argue that there is more land paved with asphalt and concrete in and near population centers -- this creates what is called a "heat island". One of the major differences between scientists is how (or even if) this effect is considered in global average temperature measurements.

BTW is snowing in Texas, an this is very rare, but it is what you expect from climate changes

Yeah, it's never snowed in Texas or Louisiana before... Sounds like they could use some of that "global warming" right about now, eh?

Your quote here typifies the ignorant acquiescence to both science and history, that is rampant on the "sky is falling" crowd you run with. Normally I would assume that even you can understand that climate statistics are measured in centuries, millennia, and epochs, not days, months and years. In this case, I clearly cannot assume you understand even that much...

[xavier]

To give an idea about the cozy relation between the Cato Institute and Fox News, Headline News and some the other the Nut-Jobs Conservative/Libertarian commentators,
here is a compilation of some their experts stances on various topics, always in defense of a corporation at the expense of the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmLAUJmwT1w

Ah yes, youtube -- certainly as unassailable as an objective source of information as Wikipedia... You might as well just go ahead and post links to MSNBC, Victor. Or for that matter, FOX -- they are just as "unbiased" as each other.

Whether it is Oil, Coal, Tabacco, Trans fat food, Health, War profiteering, etc, you name if a corporation have money to pay the Cato Institute to produce favorable data, they are there.

Is that what George to0ld you to say today? Can you post a link to your talking points paper?

You certainly can't point to any evidence of these claims (whereas all of the articles and policy papers I see on Cato provide extensive bibliography for their conclusions, which often includes actual published government data).

In that regard, I return to my original point -- Cato is far more an objective source of information than anything you've ever provided in any of the threads you have ever posted in, anywhere. They cite official and scientific publications; you cite Youtube.

Thanks for playing though -- always more interesting having you around!